Publisher’s Note: For comments concerning Appendix IX generally see Comment to Rule 5:6A.

APPENDIX IX-ACONSIDERATIONS IN THE USE OF CHILD SUPPORT

GUIDELINES(Includes Amendments Through Those Effective September 1, 2017)1. Philosophy of the Child Support Guidelines - These guidelines were

developed to provide the court with economic information to assist in theestablishment and modification of fair and adequate child support awards. Thepremise of these guidelines is that (1) child support is a continuous duty of bothparents, (2) children are entitled to share in the current income of both parents,and (3) children should not be the economic victims of divorce or out-of-wedlock birth. The economic data and procedures of these guidelines attemptto simulate the percentage of parental net income that is spent on children inintact families. While it is acknowledged that the expenditures of two-household divorced, separated, or non-formed families are different fromintact-family households, it is very important that the children of this State notbe forced to live in poverty because of family disruption and that they beafforded the same opportunities available to children in intact families withparents of similar financial means as their own parents.

2. Use of the Child Support Guidelines As a Rebuttable Presumption -In accordance with Rule 5:6A, these guidelines must be used as a rebuttablepresumption to establish and modify all child support orders. The guidelinesmust be applied in all actions, contested and uncontested, in which childsupport is being determined including those involving pendente lite(temporary) support, interstate support (Uniform Interstate Family Support Act(UIFSA)), domestic violence, foster care, divorce, non-dissolution, and publicassistance (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF). A rebuttablepresumption means that an award based on the guidelines is assumed to be thecorrect amount of child support unless a party proves to the court thatcircumstances exist that make a guidelines-based award inappropriate in aspecific case. The guidelines may be disregarded or a guidelines-based awardadjusted if a party shows, and the court finds, that such action is appropriatedue to conflict with one of the factors set forth in sections 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15or 20 of Appendix IX-A, or due to the fact that an injustice would result due tothe application of the guidelines in a specific case. The determination ofwhether good cause exists to disregard or adjust a guidelines-based award in aparticular case shall be decided by the court.

3. Deviating from the Child Support Guidelines - If the court finds thatthe guidelines are inappropriate in a specific case, it may either disregard theguidelines or adjust the guidelines-based award to accommodate the needs ofthe children or the parents' circumstances. If the support guidelines are notapplied in a specific case or the guidelines-based award is adjusted, the reasonfor the deviation and the amount of the guidelines-based award (before anyadjustment) must be specified in writing on the guidelines worksheet or in thesupport order. Such findings clarify the basis for the support order if appealedor modified in the future. If the guidelines are found to be inapplicable in aparticular case, the court should consider the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 or N.J.S.A. 9:17-53 when establishing the child support award.

4. The Income Shares Approach to Sharing Child-Rearing Expenses -New Jersey statutes and case law provide that both parents are responsible for

the financial needs of their children. In intact families, the income of bothparents is pooled and spent for the benefit of all household members includingthe children. Each parent's contribution to the combined income of the familyrepresents their relative sharing of household expenses. For example, if theparents have equal incomes, they are assumed to share all expenditures for thefamily equally (50%). This same income sharing principle is used to determinehow the parents will share a child support award. In dissolved or non-formedfamilies, however, the parents share only the expenses for the child (i.e., theAppendix IX-F support schedules are based on the marginal or added cost of achild or children to an adult couple). In sole-parenting situations, the custodialparent's share of the child-rearing expenses is assumed to be spent directly onthe child through daily living expenses. The non-custodial parent's share ofchild-rearing costs represents the support order that is paid to the custodialparent for the benefit of the child. In situations involving PAR time (formerlyreferred to as visitation), both parents make direct expenditures for the childwhile the child resides in their homes. To accommodate duplicated and shiftingexpenses associated with a child who shares time with parents who liveseparately, the Appendix IX-F sole-parenting awards may need to be adjustedto reflect each parent's assumed level of marginal spending on the child.

5. Economic Basis for the Child Support Guidelines - At the foundationof the child support guidelines are estimates of what parents in intact familiesspend on their children. Determining the cost of raising a child is difficultbecause most goods and services purchased by families are shared by adultsand children. Economists estimate that approximately 65% of householdspending is for pooled items (e.g., a car, a washing machine, or a box of laundrydetergent used in common by all household members). Even for goods that areprivately consumed (e.g., clothing, food), expenditure surveys are not detailedenough to link individual household members (adults or children) to aparticular expenditure. Together, pooled and privately consumed goodsaccount for about 90% of total household expenditures. Since mostexpenditures on children cannot be observed directly, economists use anindirect method of determining child-rearing costs known as marginal-costestimation. Marginal-cost estimation attempts to find the added cost of a childto a family by comparing the expenditures of families considered equally well-off economically and have different numbers of children. For example, if twofamilies (one with and one without a child) are equally well-off, the additionalexpenses of the family with a child are assumed to be the marginal cost of thechild.

Selecting a Standard of Well-Being - Before estimating the marginal cost ofchildren, a standard of well-being must be defined. Different marginal costestimation methods use different standards of well-being. Although severalstandards have been used in the past, no consensus has emerged as to whichprovides the most credible result. Two of the most widely used marginal-costestimation methods, Rothbarth and Engel, employ the standards of well-beingdescribed below.

Engel - The standard of well-being is the proportion of household incomespent on food. Thus, if two families spend the same percentage of theirincome on food, they are considered equally well-off. Rothbarth - This standard of well-being is based on how parents adjusttheir spending on adult goods due to the presence of a child. In otherwords, well-being is measured by comparing excess-income (i.e., after

necessary expenditures for the family) available to purchase adult goodssuch as adult clothing, alcohol, tobacco, and entertainment.

Consumer Expenditure Data - Once an estimation technique is chosen, thehousehold expenditure data to which it is applied must be selected. Typically,economists use data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX). The CEXis the most detailed source of national data on household expenditures and howthey vary by family composition, size, geographic location and socioeconomiccharacteristics. The CEX collects expenditure information for hundreds ofhousehold consumption items including food, housing, clothing,transportation, education, child care, health care, and entertainment. The CEXis a cross-sectional survey designed to represent the civilian, non-institutionalpopulation in the United States. Approximately 5,000 families participate inthe CEX each quarter. CEX results are published annually, however, the resultsare generally three years old by the time they are available for public use. TheCEX is considered the best available source of information for determining thecost of children using marginal-cost estimation techniques.

The Betson Analysis - In September 1990, Dr. David Betson of theUniversity of Notre Dame published child-rearing estimates based on hisanalysis of pooled CEX data from 1980 through the first quarter of 1987, avariety of estimation techniques, and alternative definitions of the standard ofwell-being. As did previous studies, Dr. Betson’s analysis resulted in a widerange of estimates of expenditures on children. Dr. Betson, like othereconomists, believes that the true range of marginal expenditures on childrenlies at some interval between the Engel and Rothbarth estimates. The Engelestimates, which are close to per capita (i.e., equal shares), clearly overstate themarginal cost of children and, thus, represent the upper bound of spending onchildren. Economists know that the Engel estimates are incorrect, but do nothave the same information about the Rothbarth estimates. Thus, the Rothbarthestimates may represent the true level of marginal spending on children or thetheoretical lower bound of that spending. Dr. Betson concluded that theRothbarth method produced the best set of estimates on the marginal cost ofchildren because it has the least empirical flaws and those that do exist have aminimal effect on the resulting estimates.

Estimating Spending on Children - The CEX does not have a direct measureof spending on children, so the expenditures on children are measuredindirectly. The cost of raising children is estimated by comparing totalspending in households without children to total spending in households withone, two, and three children in all income categories covered by the tables.Although this may be an indicator of the marginal increase in householdspending when children are added, it does not give a complete picture sinceincome constraints may also force adults to spend less on themselves to sharewhat income is available with their child(ren). To measure the impact childrenmake on adult household spending, economists Michael and Lazear haveascertained that measuring the change in expenditures on adult clothing givesthe best estimate of expenditures on children in the household. This particular"estimator," which is a derivative of the Rothbarth methodology adopted tocurrent use by Dr. William Rodgers, III, Chief Economist of the John J.Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Edward Bloustein School ofPlanning and Public Policy, at Rutgers University, is along with the marginalincreases in overall household spending, analyzed to arrive at the overall costof child rearing as reflected in the awards table. The CEX data is also adjusted

to account for the variety of educational levels, ethnic backgrounds, and otherfactors specific to the population of New Jersey.

Development of Child Support Award Schedules - Dr. Rodgers’ 2012 studyestimates parental expenditures on one, two, and three children as a percentageof total household outlays. To do this, Rodgers uses the estimation methoddeveloped in the Lazear and Michael treatise (1988) and transforms theRothbarth parameters into a schedule of child support obligations by using thefollowing steps:

a. converting child-related spending as a proportion of consumption to aproportion of net income;

b. updating estimates to 2011;c. adjusting the schedule to reflect New Jersey’s higher cost of living as

measured by the "Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers"(CPI-U);

d. deducting the cost of child care and unreimbursed health care expensesthat exceed $250 per child per year (these expenses are added to thebasic obligation);

e. extrapolating the estimates to families with four, five, and six children;f. computing marginal proportions between income intervals so that the

support schedule can be constructed in ten dollars increments;g. using the Rothbarth and marginal proportions to create the relationship

between support obligations and combined net weekly income; and h. using median regression to smooth (remove remaining kinks/discrete

jumps) the relationship.6. Economic Principles Included in the Child Support Guidelines

a. There is no absolute cost of raising children. The cost of raisingchildren is inferred from the amount that parents' spend on theirchildren. A child's marginal cost is the amount of spending abovewhat the parents would spend if they did not have a child.

b. Larger households have lower per-person costs due to economies ofscale and the sharing of family goods (i.e., unit prices decrease asquantities and sharing increase).

c. Total spending on children increases with family size but at adecreasing rate. Support awards increase with the number of childrenin the family.

d. When a family’s total outlays rise, child-related spending increasesroughly in the same proportion. In the Rodgers study’s analysis, asone moves from the lowest to highest of the 22 income intervals, theaverage increase in total outlays is 7%, 6%, and 7% for one child, twochildren, and three children. The comparable average increases in theexpenditures on children are 7%, 7%, and 9%.

e. As a family’s income increases, child-related expenditures increasebecause parents use a portion of their disposable income to improvetheir children’s quality of life. From the Lazear and Michael model,the change (derivative) in child-related expenditures with respect tofamily income has two components. The second portion of thederivative is the positive impact that income has on total expenditures.

f. Child-related expenditures as a percentage of family consumption arerelatively constant across most of the income scale.

g. As income increases, total family consumption spending declines as aproportion of net income since income items such as savings, personal

insurance, and gifts increase with family income. Families at lowerlevel of the income ladder have consumption spending that mayexceed 100% of net income. In contrast, high-income families mayspend 60% to 75% of net income on consumption items.

h. As a family’s income increases, child-related expenditures as aproportion of family income decline, even though these expendituresas a percentage of a family’s consumption spending remain fairlyconstant. The difference between spending as a proportion of familyincome and a proportion of consumption is due to the effect of incometaxes, savings, and charitable contributions. Income allocated to theseitems is not available for consumption spending.

i. Due to economies of scale, the sharing of family goods and theredistribution of adult spending, as the number of children increases,the additional cost of each child has a less than proportionate increase.Dr. Rodgers estimates that child-related expenditures for two childrenare less than twice as much as child-related expenditures for one child.For two children, the average cost across the 22 income intervals is1.7 more than one child. Also, the child-related expenditures for threechildren are less than three times as much as one child. This studyaverage is 2.2 more than one child. These estimates lie in the range ofthose reported in the 2004 Policy Studies report for New Jersey.

7. Assumptions Included in the Child Support Guidelines a. Intact Family Spending Patterns as the Standard for Support Orders -

Support guidelines based on spending patterns of intact familiesprovide an adequate level of support for children. Child-rearingexpenditures of single parents provide little guidance for settingadequate child support awards since single-parent householdsgenerally have less money to spend compared with intact families.The fact that single parents actually do spend less income on childrencompared with two-parent families does not mean that they shouldspend less if the other parent has the means to increase total spendingon the children through support payments. Also, the level of spendingby single parents on their children has no relation to adequacy or theneeds of the children but is a function of the total amount of incomeavailable to those parents.

b. Standard of Living - Although these support guidelines attempt toapproximate the same level of marginal spending on children beforedivorce or separation, the resulting child support awards do notguarantee that the children's standard of living will remain the same ifone of those events occurs. Usually, the children's standard of livingwill decline since the child support award (based on marginalspending) is being added to a much smaller level of base householdexpenditures. Less total money is available in the primary householdof the child after divorce or separation since the other parent's incomeis no longer available. Less money means a decline in householdexpenditures which results in a lower standard of living. Additionally,some economies of scale are lost when one parent leaves thehousehold.

c. Marginal-Cost Estimation - For determining child support obligations,marginal-cost estimation techniques, which provide the additionalcost of children based on intact-family spending patterns, are more

appropriate than average-cost methods that divide spending betweenall family members equally (per capita).

d. The Rothbarth Marginal Cost Estimator - The Rothbarth marginalcost estimation techniques (e.g., Betson and Lazear and Michael)provide the most accurate estimates of parental expenditures onchildren in dual-parent families. Dr. Rodgers’ 2012 analysis of the2000 to 2011 micro data of the Consumer Expenditure Surveyprovides the most current and reliable estimates of child-relatedexpenditures in dual-parent families.

e. National versus New Jersey Spending on Children - Because theRothbarth estimates are for the U.S. and it is well known that NewJersey’s income distribution is very different from the U.S incomedistribution, Dr. Rodgers uses U.S. Census data to equate the incomeof New Jersey and U.S families and constructs proportions to smooththe schedule or remove discrete jumps in obligation as net incomerises. This follows the same principle as in the 2004 Policy StudiesReport for New Jersey. The 2010 U.S. and New Jersey incomedistribution in the American Community Survey was used to adjustthe Rothbarth estimates.

f. NCP/PAR Time - The awards in the support schedules representspending on children by intact families. In an intact family, thechildren reside in one household and no NCP/PAR time is needed.This is similar to child support actions in which one parent has solephysical custody of a child and there is no NCP/PAR time. Theawards in the Appendix IX-F support schedules represent situations inwhich the child is with the custodial parent 100% of the time.Although the Appendix IX-F awards are not reduced for NCP/PARtime, they may be adjusted, if these factors are present in a specificcase, through worksheet calculations. For further information andassumptions related to NCP/PAR time adjustments and their relatedassumptions, see paragraphs 13 and 14 respectively.

g. Effect of a Child's Age - Dr. Rodgers’ 2012 study does not provideestimates on child-rearing expenditures by children’s age groups. TheAppendix IX-F awards represent the average cost of raising a childfrom age zero through 17 years (i.e., the total marginal cost averagedover 18 years). Studies have shown that expenditures are higher thanthe average for teen-aged children and lower than the average forpreteen children.

h. Self-Support Reserve - The self-support reserve is a factor incalculating a child support award only when one or both of the parentshave income at or near the poverty level. The self-support reserve is105% of the U.S. poverty guideline for one person. It attempts toensure that the obligor has sufficient income to maintain a basicsubsistence level and the incentive to work so that child support canbe paid. A child support award is adjusted to reflect the self-supportreserve only if payment of the child support award would reduce theobligor’s net income below the reserve and the custodial parent’s (orthe Parent of the Primary Residence’s) net income minus the custodialparent’s share of the child support award is greater than 105% of thepoverty guideline. The latter condition is necessary to ensure thatcustodial parents can meet their basic needs so that they can care for

the children. As of January 26, 2017, the self-support reserve is$244.00 (this amount is 105% of the poverty guideline for oneperson).

i. Income Tax Withholding - For wage earners, income tax withholdingrates provide an accurate estimate of after-tax income available to payweekly support obligations. Income tax withholding may differ fromend-of-year tax obligations due to the parent's filing status and thenumber exemptions, deductions and credits reported or claimed byeach parent.

j. Spending of Child Support Order - These guidelines assume that theobligee is spending the support award for the benefit of the child orchildren.

k. Sharing of Child-Rearing Expenses - These guidelines assume that theparents are sharing in the child-rearing expenses in proportion to theirrelative incomes. To the extent that this is not true (i.e., if one parentis paying all costs associated with housing for the child from his or herown income) and can be proven to the court, a guidelines-basedsupport award may require adjustment.

8. Expenses Included in the Child Support Schedules - The awards in theAppendix IX-F child support schedules represent the average amount thatintact families spend on their children (i.e., the marginal amount spent on thechildren). The Appendix IX-F support awards include the child's share ofexpenses for housing, food, clothing, transportation, entertainment,unreimbursed health care up to and including $250 per child per year, andmiscellaneous items. Specific items included in each category are listed below.Note: The fact that a family does not incur a specific expense in a consumptioncategory is not a basis for a deviation from the child support guidelines. TheAppendix IX-F awards are based on the percentage of income spent on childrenby a large number of families in a variety of socioeconomic situations. The useof averages reflects the diversity of spending by parents. To qualify for adeviation based on average costs, a parent must show that the family's marginalspending on children for all items related to a consumption category differsfrom the average family (e.g., there are no housing costs).

Housing- Mortgage principal and interest payments or home equityloans, property taxes, insurance, refinancing charges, repairs,maintenance, rent, parking fees, property management or security fees,expenses for vacation homes, lodging while out of town, utilities, fuels,public services, domestic services, lawn care, gardening, pest control,laundry and dry cleaning (non-clothing), moving and storage, repairs onhome, furniture, major appliances, purchase or rental of householdequipment of tools, postage, laundry or cleaning supplies, cleaning andtoilet tissues, household and lawn products, stationary, all indoor andoutdoor furniture, floor coverings, all small appliances and housewares(except personal care appliances), all household textiles (e.g., linens,drapes, slipcovers, sewing materials, etc.), and miscellaneous householdequipment (e.g., clocks, luggage, light fixtures, computers and software,decorating items, etc.). The net purchase price of a home is not includedas expenditures in this category.Food - All food and non-alcoholic beverages purchased for homeconsumption or purchased away from home (including vendingmachines, restaurants, tips, school meals and catered affairs). Non-food

items (e.g., tissue papers, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes) are notincluded.Clothing - All children’s clothing (including school uniforms), footwear(except special footwear for sports), diapers, repairs or alterations toclothing and footwear, storage, dry cleaning, laundry, watches, andjewelry.Transportation - All costs involved with owning or leasing anautomobile including monthly installments toward principal cost,finance charges (interest), lease payments, gas and motor oil, insurance,maintenance and repairs. Also, included are other costs related totransportation such as public transit, parking fees, license andregistration fees, towing, tolls, and automobile service clubs. The netoutlay (purchase price minus the trade-in value) for a vehicle purchase isnot included. Transportation also does not include expenses associatedwith a motor vehicle purchased or leased for the intended primary use ofa child subject to the support order.Unreimbursed Health Care Up to and Including $250 Per Child PerYear - Unreimbursed health-care expenditures (e.g., medical and dental)up to and including $250 per child per year are included in the schedules.Such expenses are considered ordinary and may include items such asnon-prescription drugs, co-payments or health care services, equipmentor products. The parent's cost of adding a child to health insurance policyis not included in the schedules.Entertainment - Fees, memberships and admissions to sports,recreational, or social events, lessons or instructions, movie rentals,televisions, mobile devices, sound equipment, pets, hobbies, toys,playground equipment, photographic equipment, film processing, videogames, and recreational, exercise or sports equipment.Miscellaneous Items - Personal care products and services (e.g., hair,shaving, cosmetics), books and magazines, school supplies, cashcontributions, personal insurance, and finance charges (except those formortgage and vehicle purchases).Note: Tuition for children (i.e., for private, parochial, or trade schools, orother secondary schools, or post-secondary education) are not includedin the child support schedules and may be treated as a supplementalexpense.

9. Expenses That May Be Added to the Basic Child Support Obligation- Because some child-related expenses represent large or variable expendituresor are not incurred by typical intact families, it is not appropriate to includethem in the Appendix IX-F basic child support awards. The items listed beloware not included in the Appendix IX-F child support awards. If incurred in aparticular case, these expenses should be added to the basic support obligation.

a. Child-Care Expenses - The average cost of child care, including daycamp in lieu of child care, is not factored into in the schedules. Thenet cost (after tax credits) of work-related child care should be addedto the basic obligation if incurred.

b. Health Insurance for the Child - The parent's marginal cost of addinga child to a health insurance premium is not included in the supportschedules and should be added to the basic obligation if incurred.

c. Predictable and Recurring Unreimbursed Health Care Expenses InExcess of $250 Per Child Per Year - Unreimbursed health-care

expenses for a child in excess of $250 per child per year are notincluded in the schedules. Such expenses should be added to the basicobligation if they are predictable and recurring. Health-care expensesfor a child that exceed $250 per child per year that are not predictableand recurring should be shared by the parents in proportion to theirrelative incomes as incurred (i.e., the sharing of these expenses shouldbe addressed in the general language of the order or judgment). Healthcare costs that are not included in the support award should be paiddirectly to the parent who made or will make the expenditure ordirectly to the provider of the health care (also, see N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23b).

d. Other Expenses Approved by the Court - These are predictable andrecurring expenses for children that may not be incurred by averageor intact families such as private elementary or secondary education,special needs of gifted or disabled children, and NCP/PAR timetransportation expenses. The addition of these expenses to the basicobligation must be approved by the court. If incurred, specialexpenses that are not predictable and recurring should be shared bythe parents in proportion to their relative incomes (i.e., the sharing ofthese expenses should be addressed in the general language of theorder or judgment). Special expenses not included in the award shouldbe paid directly to the parent who made or will make the expenditureor to the provider of the goods or services.

10. Adjustments to the Support Obligation - The factors listed below mayrequire an adjustment to the basic child support obligation.

a. Other Legal Dependents of Either Parent - These guidelines include amechanism to apportion a parent's income to all of his or her legaldependents regardless of the timing of their birth or family association(i.e., if a divorced parent remarries and has children, that parent'sincome should be shared by all children born to that parent). Legaldependents include adopted or natural children of either parent whoare less than 18 years of age or more than 18 years of age and stillattending high school or other secondary school. Stepchildren are notconsidered legal dependents unless a court has found that thestepparent has a legal responsibility for the stepchildren. Whenconsidering the use of this adjustment, the following principles shallapply:(1) where there is not an order requiring either parent to pay support

for the other dependent this adjustment shall be used only if theincome, if any, of the other parent of the secondary family isprovided to or ascertainable by the court;

(2) where there is not an order requiring either parent to pay supportfor the other dependent, if the other parent in the secondary familyis voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, the court shallimpute income to that person (see paragraph 12) to determine theserial family parent's obligation to the children in the secondaryfamily;

(3) this adjustment may be applied to other dependents born before orafter the child for whom support is being determined;

(4) this adjustment may be requested by either or both parents(custodial and/or non-custodial);

(5) the adjustment may be applied when the initial award is entered orduring subsequent modifications of the support order.

b. Multiple Family Obligations. In some cases, one individual may beobligated to pay child support to multiple families. When the courtadjudicates a case involving an obligor with multiple familyobligations, it may be necessary to review all past orders for thatindividual. If the court has jurisdiction over all matters, it may eitheraverage the orders or fashion some other equitable resolution to treatall supported children fairly under the guidelines. If multiple ordersreduce the obligor's income to an amount below the self-supportreserve, the orders should be adjusted to distribute the obligor'savailable income equitably among all children while taking intoconsideration both the obligee’s share of the child support obligationand the obligor's self-support reserve. If other jurisdictions’ tribunalsordered the obligor to pay child support for a different family, theNew Jersey court may consider that fact for the purpose ofmaintaining the obligor’s self-support reserve.

c. Government Benefits Paid to or for Children - Government benefitsfor children fall into three categories. The treatment of each type ofbenefit is related to its purpose and eligibility standards.1. Means-tested benefits have eligibility standards based on the fact

that the child or parent has minimal income and requiresgovernment assistance. This includes, but is not limited to,Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), DeficitReduction Act (DEFRA), Refugee Assistance, rent subsidies, foodstamps (SNAP), and Supplemental Security Income for the Aged,Blind or Disabled (SSI), kinship guardian subsidies. Means-testedbenefits for the child are meant to provide for minimal subsistenceand are excluded as income (not counted for either parent).

2. Derivative benefits have eligibility standards that are based on thecontribution (e.g., work history, military service, disability orretirement) of one of the parties, without regard to family income.This includes but is not limited to Social Security Disability, SocialSecurity Retirement, Black Lung, and Veteran's Administrationbenefits. Such payments are either deducted from a parent’sgovernment benefit or paid in addition to the parent’s benefit.These child benefits are earned benefits that are meant to replacethe lost earnings of the parent in the event of disability orretirement. The derivative child benefits shall be counted in theweekly net income of the parent whose contribution is the sourceof the benefits and applied as a credit to that parent's child supportobligation. If the amount of the support obligation after deductingthe benefits is zero, then the child support obligation is satisfiedand no support award should be ordered while the child isreceiving the benefits.

3. Other benefits are obtained without regard to means tests orcontribution (e.g., work history, military service, disability, orretirement) of either party. This includes, but is not limited to,adoption subsidies and Social Security benefits based on the workhistory of a non-party relative, such as a stepparent, grandparent ordeceased parent. This type of government benefit is not meant to

replace lost earnings of a party, but to supplement the child'shousehold income. Such benefits are counted as income for theparent who actually receives the benefits (usually the custodialparent).

11. Defining Income - These guidelines are based on the combined netincome of the parents. Generally, net income is gross income minus incometaxes, mandatory union dues, mandatory retirement, previously ordered childsupport orders, and, when appropriate, a theoretical child support obligation forother dependents. See Appendix IX-B for a detailed definition of income andtaxes as they relate to the child support guidelines.

12. Imputing Income to Parents. The fairness of a child support awardresulting from the application of these guidelines is dependent on the accuratedetermination of a parent's net income. If the court finds that either parent is,without just cause, voluntarily underemployed or unemployed, it shall imputeincome to that parent according to the following priorities:

a. impute income based on potential employment and earning capacityusing the parent's work history, occupational qualifications,educational background, and prevailing job opportunities in theregion. The court may impute income based on the parent's formerincome at that person's usual or former occupation or the averageearnings for that occupation as reported by the New JerseyDepartment of Labor (NJDOL);

b. if potential earnings cannot be determined, impute income based onthe parent's most recent wage or benefit record (a minimum of twocalendar quarters) on file with the NJDOL (note: NJDOL recordsinclude wage and benefit income only and, thus, may differ from theparent's actual income); or

c. if a NJDOL wage or benefit record is not available, impute incomebased on the full-time employment (40 hours) at the prevailing NewJersey minimum wage.

In determining whether income should be imputed to a parent and theamount of such income, the court should consider: (1) what the employmentstatus and earning capacity of that parent would have been if the family hadremained intact or would have formed, (2) the reason and intent for thevoluntary underemployment or unemployment, (3) the availability of otherassets that may be used to pay support, and (4) the ages of any children in theparent's household and child-care alternatives. The determination of imputedincome shall not be based on the gender or custodial position of the parent.Income of other household members, current spouses, and children shall not beused to impute income to either parent except when determining the other-dependent credit. When imputing income to a parent who is caring for youngchildren, the parent's income share of child-care costs necessary to allow thatperson to work outside the home shall be deducted from the imputed income.For further information on imputing income, see Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J.Super. 298 (App. Div. 2008), Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250 (2005), Gertcherv. Gertcher, 262 N.J. Super. 176 (Ch. Div. 1992), Bencivenga v. Bencivenga,254 N.J. Super. 328 (App. Div. 1992), Thomas v. Thomas, 248 N.J. Super. 33(Ch. Div. 1991), Arribi v. Arribi, 186 N.J. Super. 116 (Ch. Div. 1982), Lynn v.Lynn, 165 N.J. Super. 328 (App. Div. 1979), Mowery v. Mowery, 38 N.J. Super.92 (App. Div. 1955).

13. Adjustments for PAR Time (formerly Visitation Time) a. For the purpose of these guidelines, visitation is a level of parental

participation in child-rearing that is less than the substantialequivalent of two or more overnights with the child each week(approximately 28% of overnights excluding vacations and holidays).Overnight means the majority of a 24-hour day (i.e., more than 12hours). The sharing of parenting responsibilities above this timethreshold may qualify for a shared-parenting child support award (seeparagraph 14). For non-custodial parents (NCP) who participate inchild-rearing responsibilities on a regular basis but for less than thesubstantial equivalent of two or more overnights per week, it isassumed that:(1) fixed costs (e.g., housing-related expenses) for the child are not

incurred by the NCP;(2) variable costs (e.g., food, transportation, and some entertainment)

for the time spent with the child are incurred by the NCP; and(3) variable costs represent 37% of the total child-related

expenditures. b. Regular PAR Time - If a parenting plan that sets forth a PAR Time

schedule is filed with the court or a PAR Time schedule is ordered,and/or the non-custodial parent exercises regular PAR Time with thechild, the court may reduce an Appendix IX-F sole-parenting supportaward to accommodate variable expenses (food and transportation)incurred by the non-custodial parent during PAR Time periods. Indetermining if such an adjustment is appropriate, the court shouldconsider whether the non-custodial parent has incurred variableexpenses for the child during PAR Time and if PAR Time has reducedthe other parent's variable expenses for the child. If the non-custodialparent exercises PAR Time for more than the substantial equivalentof two or more overnights per week, a shared-parenting award may beappropriate (see paragraph 14). (1) The reduction in the award shall not exceed the parent's time share

(percentage of overnight time with the child) of the variable costs-- food and transportation -- for the child. For example, if the sole-parenting basic support award is $100 and the non-custodial parentspends 20% of the time with the child, the maximum PAR Timecredit is $7.40 calculated as: [$100 (basic award) × 0.37 (variablecosts) × 0.20 (%time)].

(2) Extended PAR Time in excess of five consecutive overnights thatrepresents a single event or intermittent occurrence (e.g., vacationor holiday time) shall not be used to determine the non-custodialparent's annual percentage of overnight time for calculating aregular PAR Time (see paragraph 13(c)) adjustment. ExtendedPAR Time periods that are part of a regularly scheduled rotation ofconsecutive weeks between the parents that is set forth in aparenting plan or court order (e.g., a regular schedule thatalternates weeks between parents during the year or entiresummer) should be included in the calculation of the regular PARTime adjustment (variable expenses), but shall not be included in

the determination of qualifying time for a shared-parentingadjustment (fixed expenses) unless the parent shows and the courtfinds that marginal housing-related costs for the child wereincurred in the PAR’s household for the extended PAR Timeperiod.

(3) If the custodial parent’s household net income (CP net incomefrom all sources including TANF and the net income of otheradults in the household) plus the PAR Time-adjusted child supportorder is less than two times the poverty guideline for the totalnumber of persons in the household, the adjustment for PAR Timeexpenses shall not be presumptive, but shall be subject to thediscretion of the court.

c. Extended PAR Time (Vacation and Holiday Time). If a child is in thecare of a non-custodial parent for five or more consecutive overnights,that parent may request an abatement of the child support order for theextended-PAR Time period. Upon the filing of a motion by the parentseeking the extended-PAR Time abatement, the court shall decidewhether the abatement is appropriate, its amount, and how it shall beapplied. Alternatively, the amount of an extended-PAR Timeabatement may be specified prospectively in an agreement betweenthe parents. The amount of the abatement shall not exceed the variableexpenses (food and transportation) incurred for the child during theextended-PAR Time period (i.e., the abatement should not be for theentire award during the vacation period since the custodial parentcontinues to have fixed and controlled expenses during that time).Variable expenses represent 37% of a basic child support awardbefore any regular-PAR Time adjustments. If child care or otherspecial expenses are included in the order, an abatement for the non-custodial parent's share of those costs that are not incurred duringextended-PAR Time shall be given unless such costs are paid inadvance or must be paid during the extended PAR Time. Extendedvacation or holiday time used to calculate a PAR Time or sharedparenting adjustment as permitted in the discretion of the court underparagraph 13(b)(2) or 14(c)(2)(a) does not qualify for the extended-PAR Time abatement under this paragraph.

d. Non-Compliance with a Parenting Plan - If an award is adjustedprospectively for PAR Time and the non-custodial parent, over areasonable period, does not conform with the PAR Time scheduleincluded in a parenting plan or court order, the custodial parent mayfile an application with the Family Division requesting that the childsupport order be adjusted to reflect the level of PAR Time that is beingexercised. A simple application for this purpose shall be madeavailable to parents by the Family Division of the Superior Court toensure that the affected children receive the financial support that isneeded. If PAR Time was used to adjust the child support award andthe court finds that the non-custodial parent, over a reasonable period,failed to comply with the PAR Time schedule specified in theparenting plan or court order, the child support award shall berecalculated to reflect the actual PAR Time that is being exercised.

Alternatively, the court may adjust the award to a zero PAR Timelevel until the non-custodial parent shows that PAR Time is occurringon a regular basis. Where possible, the court shall hear and decideapplications to recalculate child support due to a parent’s failure tocomply with a PAR Time schedule in a summary manner. Thedetermination of the effective date of any modification shall beconsistent with N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a unless otherwise ordered bythe court. If the court finds that a parent willfully failed to complywith a parenting time provision or entered into such a provisionmerely to reduce the child support award, it may award counsel feesto a custodial parent in addition to adjusting the amount of childsupport as provided in this paragraph.

14. Shared-Parenting Arrangementsa. The Support Guidelines and Shared Parenting - The awards in the

Appendix IX-F support schedules represent spending on children byintact families. In an intact family, the children reside in onehousehold with both parents (i.e., there is no shifting of childrenbetween households as with non-intact families). Thus, the AppendixIX-F awards are appropriate only if the child resides in the custodialparent's household 100% of the time. In shared-parenting situations,each parent incurs expenses for the child while the child is with thatparent. To accommodate shared-parenting situations, each parent'sincome share of the Appendix IX-F support award may be adjustedbased on expenses assumed to be duplicated or shifted and the amountof time spent with the child. Although these guidelines are designedto accommodate shared-parenting arrangements when appropriate,shared-parenting adjustments or awards are not presumptive, but aresubject to the discretion of the court in accordance with the factorslisted in paragraphs 14(c) and 14(d).

b. Parties Defined. In shared-parenting situations, a parent's designationis related to the time the child spends in that parent's residence. Theparents should be referred to as the Parent of Primary Residence(PPR) and the Parent of Alternate Residence (PAR). Either the PPRor the PAR may be the obligor of the support order depending onincome and the time spent with the child. The designation of PPR andPAR is not related to the gender of either parent or the legaldesignation of custodial parent. The PPR and PAR are defined asfollows:(1) Parent of Primary Residence (PPR) - The parent with whom the

child spends most of his or her overnight time. The primaryresidence is the home where the child resides for more than 50% ofthe overnights annually. If the time spent with each parent is equal(50% of overnights each), the PPR is the parent with whom thechild resides while attending school. Overnight means the majorityof a 24-hour day (i.e., more than 12 hours).

(2) Parent of Alternate Residence (PAR) - This is the parent withwhom the child resides when not living in the primary residence.

c. Criteria for Determining a Shared-Parenting Award - The criterialisted below must be met before the shared-parenting worksheet and

instructions are used to calculate a shared-parenting award. Theexistence of these criteria does not make a shared-parenting awardpresumptive, but permit the calculation of the award so that the courtcan determine if it is appropriate for a particular family.

(1) A parenting plan that specifies parenting times and responsibilitiesmust be filed with or ordered by the court.

(2) The PAR has or is expected to have the child for the substantialequivalent of two or more overnights per week over a year or more(at least 28% of the time) and the PAR can show that separateliving accommodations for the child are provided during suchtimes (i.e., evidence of separate living accommodationsmaintained specifically for the child during overnight stays).

(a)At the discretion of the court, the determination of qualifyingshared-parenting time may include extended-PAR Time periods offive or more consecutive overnights that are part of a regularlyscheduled rotation between the parents as set forth in a parentingplan or court order if the PAR shows that marginal housing-relatedcosts were incurred for those periods. Qualifying shared-parentingtime shall not include extended PAR Time periods of five or moreovernights that represent vacations, holidays, or other periodicevents (see Extended PAR Time above).

(b)Although a PAR may not be eligible for the shared-parentingadjustment (both fixed and variable expenses) due to limited timewith the child, a regular PAR Time credit (variable expenses only)may be appropriate (see paragraph 13).

d. Unless the parties otherwise agree, the final child support ordershall not be based on a calculated shared-parenting award if:

(1) the PPR's weekly household net income (including means-testedincome such as TANF and the net income of other adults living inthe household) plus the shared-parenting child support award isless than two times the U.S. poverty guideline for the number ofpersons in the household (PPR household income thresholds areshown in table below); or

(2) in any case, the court finds that the net income of the primaryhousehold remaining after the calculation of the shared-parentingaward is not sufficient to maintain the household for the child.When evaluating the adequacy of the primary household's totalincome, the court shall consider the cost of living in the regionwhere the child resides (e.g., the average cost of housing, food, andtransportation).

When determining the PPR's household income to evaluate theprimary household income threshold, the court may impute incometo the PPR in accordance with Appendix IX-A, paragraph 12.

e If a shared-parenting award is inappropriate due to the PPR’s limitedhousehold income, a sole-custody award shall be calculated.

TH

f. Relative Spending on Children and Shared-Parenting Situations - Forthe purpose of the application of these guidelines to shared-parentingsituations, there are three broad categories of expenses incurred forchildren by their parents: fixed, variable and controlled. Fixed costs are those incurred even when the child is not residing

with the parent. Housing-related expenses (e.g., dwelling, utilities,household furnishings and household care items) are consideredfixed costs.

Variable costs are incurred only when the child is with the parent(i.e., they follow the child). This category includes transportationand food.

Controlled costs over which the PPR, as the primary caretaker ofthe child, has direct control. This category includes clothing,personal care, entertainment, and miscellaneous expenses.

The Appendix IX-F support awards (which represent marginal child-rearing costs) are based on expenditures of intact families that reside inone household. In shared-parenting situations both parents incur fixedand variable expenses for the child while the child resides in theirindividual households (in a PAR Time situation, it is assumed that thenon-custodial parent incurs only variable expenses for the child). It isassumed that controlled expenses for the child are incurred only by thePPR since, generally, that parent manages the day-to-day needs of andexpenditures for the child. The Appendix IX-F awards may not beappropriate in shared-parenting situations since they assume that the PPRincurs all expenses for the child and that the PAR has no expenses relatedto the child. To arrive at a fair support award in shared-parenting

Shared-Parenting Primary Household Net Income Thresholds

(2.0 x 2017 Poverty Guideline)

otal Persons in ousehold

Weekly Net Income

Annual Net Income

2 $625 $32,480

3 $785 $40,840

4 $946 $49,200

5 $1,107 $57,560

6 $1,268 $65,920

7 $1,428 $74,280

8 $1,589 $82,640

situations, the Appendix IX-F awards may need to be adjusted toaccommodate each parent's time-adjusted fixed and variable expensesfor the child. Since it is assumed that only the PPR incurs controlledexpenses, the adjustment formula provides that such costs are shared bythe parents in proportion to their relative incomes only, not in proportionto time spent with the children (see note on controlled expenses atparagraph I).g. Assumptions of the Shared-Parenting Adjustment - The shared-

parenting adjustment assumes that:(1) relative spending on children in the three broad consumption

categories is as follows: 38% fixed expenses, 37% variableexpenses, and 25% controlled expenses;

(2 the PAR's fixed expenses are equal to: [2× PAR's percentage ofovernights× PPR's fixed expenses]. The PAR's fixed costs are pro-rated based on the time the child spends in the alternate household.For example, if the PAR spends 30% of overnights with the child,that parent is assumed to incur 60% of the PPR's fixed costs. ThePPR's fixed costs remain static (i.e., the full 38% of the basicobligation; they are not reduced for the time the child is not in thehousehold) since that parent must maintain the primary residencefor the child at all times. The parents have equal fixed expensesonly when time sharing is equal (i.e., fixed expenses are the samewhen the child spends the same amount of time in bothhouseholds).

(3) variable costs are incurred only when the child is in the parent'shousehold and, thus, are apportioned based on each parent'spercentage of overnights with the child. For example, if the childspends 30% of overnights with the PAR, that parent incurs 30% ofthe variable expenses for the child and the PPR's variable expensesare reduced by an equal proportion;

(4) controlled expenses are incurred by the PPR only and, thus, areapportioned between the parents based on their income shares, notin relation to time spent with the children.

h. Calculating the Shared-Parenting Adjustment - Appendix IX-F sole-parenting awards are adjusted for shared-parenting by calculating thePAR's income share of the total two-household expenses (the basicsupport obligation plus the PAR's time adjusted-fixed expenses) forthe child and then deducting the PAR's time-adjusted fixed andvariable expenses for the child. This mechanism adjusts the award toaccommodate the PAR's fixed and variable expenses incurred whilethe child is with that parent and the PPR's reduced variable expenseswhile the child is not in that parent's household. The PAR's incomeshare of the net supplemental expenses (e.g., child care, court-approved special needs) is added to the PAR's adjusted basicobligation. Detailed instructions and a worksheet for calculatingshared-parenting awards are provided in Appendices IX-B and IX-Drespectively.

i. Note on Controlled Expenses - In shared-parenting situations, it isassumed that both parents incur fixed and variable costs. The shared-parenting adjustment formula allocates the total marginal fixed andvariable costs between the parents based on their relative incomes andthe time spent with the children. Controlled expenses (e.g., clothing,entertainment, and personal care items) are assumed to be incurred by

the PPR only (i.e., the PPR is responsible for the day-to-day needs ofthe child which includes the purchase of these items). Therefore,controlled expenses are shared in proportion to the parents’ incomesonly -- such expenses are not time adjusted. Thus, no adjustment ismade for direct expenditures made by a PAR for controlled itemswhether they be duplicated in the PAR’s household (e.g., clothing) ormade only while the child is present (e.g., entertainment). In somefamily situations, the PAR may incur expenses for some controlleditems either by agreement or on a voluntary basis. The adjustmentformula does not accommodate these situations because there is eitherno empirical data that segregates the expense item into specificpercentage of consumption (e.g., entertainment) or the expense itemis presumed to be with the autonomy of the PPR (e.g., clothing).Additionally, it is not always clear whether the duplication of theseexpenses is appropriate or necessary. If a PAR routinely incurscontrolled expenses for the child either in addition to or as substitutionfor a controlled expense item assumed to be unilaterally provided bythe PPR, the PAR may rebut the controlled expense assumption whenthe award is being determined. If such a rebuttal is made, the courtmust decide whether the dual expenses are appropriate and necessaryand, if so, how each controlled expense category should be treated(i.e., how much of the 25% represents the item in contention andwhether it should be treated as a variable or fixed expense).

j. Non-Compliance with Parenting Plan - If an award is adjustedprospectively for shared-parenting time and the PAR, over areasonable period, does not conform with the shared-parentingschedule included in a parenting plan or court order, the PPR may filean application with the Family Division requesting that the childsupport order be adjusted to reflect the level of PAR Time that is beingexercised. A simple application for this purpose shall be madeavailable to parents by the Family Division of the Superior Court toensure that the affected children receive the financial support that isneeded. If shared-parenting time was used to adjust the child supportaward and the court finds that the PAR, over a reasonable period,failed to comply with the shared-parenting schedule, the child supportaward shall be recalculated to reflect the actual PAR Time time that isbeing exercised. Alternatively, the court may adjust the award to azero shared-parenting level until the PAR shows that shared-parentingtime is actually being exercised. Where possible, the court shall hearand decide applications to recalculate child support due to a parent’sfailure to comply with a shared-parenting schedule in a summarymanner. The determination of the effective date of any modificationshall be consistent with N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a unless otherwiseordered by the court. If the court finds that a parent willfully failed tocomply with a parenting time provision or entered into such aprovision merely to reduce the child support award, it may awardcounsel fees to a PPR in addition to adjusting the amount of supportas provided in this paragraph.

15. Split-Parenting Arrangements - Split-parenting situations are those inwhich there are multiple children of the relationship and each parent hasphysical custody of at least one child. To determine the net support obligationin split-parenting situations, a separate sole-parenting award must be calculatedconsidering each parent as the non-custodial parent (obligor) for the number of

children in the custody of the other parent. Instead of transferring the calculatedawards between parents, the two awards are subtracted. The difference of thetwo awards is the child support order to be paid by the parent with the highersole-parenting award. If both parents serve as a PPR for at least one child of therelationship and the children share time with the other parent, the court shouldadjust each parent's award to accommodate shared-parenting costs inaccordance with the principles explained in the PAR Time sections of thisAppendix before the two awards are subtracted.

16. Child in the Custody of a Third Party - If the child is in the custodyof a third party (e.g., an aunt, uncle, grandparent, foster parent), the court shallorder both parents to pay their income shares of the sole-parenting award to thethird party for the benefit of the child.

17. Adjustments for the Age of the Children - The child support schedulesare based on child-rearing expenditures averaged across the entire age range ofzero through 17 years (total expenditures divided by 18 years). This averagingmeans that awards for younger children are slightly overstated due to the higherlevel of expenditures for older children. If an award is entered while the childis very young and continues through age 18, the net effect is negligible.However, initial awards for children in their teens are underestimated by theaveraging and should be adjusted upward to compensate for this effect. Due tolimitations of the CEX and the Rothbarth estimator, a separate marginal costfor teen-aged children could not be estimated. Based on Dr. ThomasEspenshades’s 1980 CEX study, the cost of children aged 12 through 17 was14.6% above the average expenditures. Therefore, if the initial child supportorder is entered when a child is 12 years of age or older, that order and allsubsequent orders shall be adjusted upward by 14.6%. Whenever the 14.6%adjustment is made, it should be noted in the guidelines worksheet or in thesupport order. This will clarify the basis of the order for future modificationsor appeals.

18. College or Other Post-Secondary Education Expenses - These childsupport guidelines are intended to apply to children who are less than 18 yearsof age or more than 18 years of age but still attending high school or a similarsecondary educational institution. For the reasons set forth below, theAppendix IX-F support schedules shall not be used to determine parentalcontributions for college or other post-secondary education (hereafter college)expenses nor the amount of support for a child attending college. The childsupport guidelines may be applied in the court’s discretion to support forstudents over 18 years of age who commute to college.

Duplicate Expenditures - Many costs associated with college attendance(e.g., room, board, transportation) are included in the Appendix IX-Fchild support guidelines awards. Thus, a parent who is ordered to pay aguidelines-based child support award and part of the child’s collegeexpenses is forced to make duplicate expenditures for the child (i.e., thePAR would be paying a share of the cost of food for the child to theprimary household as well as a share of the cost of a meal plan or foodallowance while the child is attending college). As a result, the level oftotal spending on the child would exceed that of intact families in asimilar economic situation and the PAR’s share of the total spending onthe child would increase beyond his or her income share. Requiringduplicate expenditures for a child is inconsistent with spending patternsof intact families and the economic theory of the child supportguidelines.

Appendix IX-F Awards Represent Intact-Family Spending on Childrenup to Age 18 - The proposed Appendix IX-F support awards are basedon the marginal cost of children who are less than 18 years of age andliving in intact-family situations. The children on whom the supportguidelines (average marginal expenditures) are based were minors whohad not progressed beyond the high school level. Thus, the Appendix IX-F awards do not include any expenditures related to college attendance.Guidelines Awards Are Based on Average Costs - The proposedAppendix IX-F child support schedules represent total average spendingon children (birth through age 18) who are living in an intact-familyresidence. Since the cost of college attendance is a large, variableexpenditure, it is inappropriate to incorporate such an expense in the totalaverage marginal costs of children. Including college costs in theAppendix IX-F support schedules would increase the recommendedsupport awards for all family situations regardless of whether a familyhas a child who is actually attending college.Guidelines Awards Represent Basic Needs - The Appendix IX-Fsupport schedules represent average marginal expenditures on childrenfor food, housing, transportation, clothing, and miscellaneous items -basic items needed by every child and provided by their parents. Sincecollege education is a discretionary expense, it is inappropriate tocommingle such costs with basic needs of children.

When determining whether continued financial support for childrenattending college and/or parental contributions to college education areappropriate, the court shall consider relevant case law and statutes. In all cases,primary consideration shall be given to the continued support of minor childrenremaining in the primary residence by reapplying the child support guidelinesfor those children before determining parental obligations for the cost of post-secondary education and/or continued support for a child attending college.

19. Determining Child Support and Alimony or Spousal SupportSimultaneously - If child support and alimony, maintenance, or spousalsupport are being determined simultaneously (for the same family), the courtshall determine the amount of alimony, maintenance, or spousal support beforeapplying the child support guidelines, except when the court establishespendente lite support. When applying the guidelines, the amount of alimony,maintenance or spousal support shall be deducted from the paying parent'sincome (after adjusting for tax benefits, if known) and added to the recipient'sincome to determine each parent's gross income. This transfer method reflectsthe availability of income to each parent for the purpose of paying childsupport.

20. Extreme Parental Income Situations - Although these guidelinesapply to all actions to establish and modify child support awards, extremelylow or high parental income situations make the Appendix IX-F awardsinappropriate due to the limitations of the economic data. The guidelines listedbelow apply to extreme parental income situations.

a. Obligors With Net Income Less Than the U.S. Poverty Guideline. If anobligor's net income, after deducting that person's share of the totalsupport award, is less than 105% of the U.S. poverty guideline for oneperson (net income of $244 per week as of January 26, 2017 or aspublished annually in the Federal Register), the court shall carefullyreview the obligor’s income and living expenses to determine themaximum amount of child support that can reasonably be orderedwithout denying the obligor the means of self-support at a minimum

subsistence level. If an obligee’s income minus the obligee’s share ofthe child support award is less than 105% of the poverty guideline, noself-support reserve adjustment shall be made regardless of theobligor’s income. In all cases, a fixed dollar amount shall be orderedto establish the principle of the parent's support obligation and toprovide a basis for an upward modification should the obligor'sincome increase in the future. In these circumstances, the supportaward should be between $5.00 per week and the support amount at$180 combined net weekly income for the appropriate number ofchildren.

b. Parents with a Combined Net Annual Income In Excess of $187,200.If the combined net income of the parents is more than $187,200 peryear, the court shall apply the guidelines up to $187,200 andsupplement the guidelines-based award with a discretionary amountbased on the remaining family income (i.e., income in excess of$187,200) and the factors specified in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Thus, themaximum guidelines award in Appendix IX-F represents theminimum award for families with net incomes of more than $187,200per year. An award for a family with net income in excess of $187,200per year shall not be less than the amount for a family with a netincome of $187,200 per year. Because estimates on the marginal costof children in intact families with net incomes of more than $187,200per year are either unreliable or unavailable, the court shall notextrapolate the Appendix IX-F schedules (statistically or by addingamounts from different income ranges) beyond that dollar limit.

21. Other Factors that May Require an Adjustment to a Guidelines-Based Award - At the court’s discretion, the following factors may require anadjustment to a guidelines-based child support award:

a. equitable distribution of property;b. income taxes;c. fixed direct payments (e.g., mortgage payments); d. unreimbursed medical/dental expenses for either parent;e. tuition for children (i.e., for private, parochial, or trade schools, or

other secondary schools, or post-secondary education);f. educational expenses for either parent to improve earning capacity;g. single family units (i.e., one household) having more than six children; h. cases involving the voluntary placement of children in foster care; i. special needs of gifted or disabled children; j. ages of the children;k. hidden costs of caring for children such as reduced income, decreased

career opportunities, loss of time to shop economically, or loss ofsavings;

l. extraordinarily high income of a child (e.g., actors, trusts);m. substantiated financial obligations for elder care ;n. substantiated financial obligations for a disabled family member;o. the tax advantages of paying for a child’s health insurance; p. one obligor owing support to more than one family (e.g., multiple prior

support orders);q. a motor vehicle purchased or leased for the intended primary use of a

child subject to the support order; r. parties sharing equal parenting time; ands. overnight adjustment for multiple children with varying parenting

time schedules.

The court may consider other factors that could, in a particular case, causethe child support guidelines to be inapplicable or require an adjustment to thechild support award. In all cases, the decision to deviate from the guidelinesshall be based on the best interests of the child. All deviations from theguidelines-based award and the amount of the guidelines-based award must bestated in writing in the support order or on the guidelines worksheet.

22. Stipulated Agreements. In accordance with Rule 5:6A, if a childsupport amount in a stipulated or consent agreement differs from an awardcalculated using the support guidelines, the parties or their representatives shallstate on a child support guidelines worksheet: (a) the amount of support thatwould have been awarded if calculated using the guidelines and (b) the reasonthat the stipulated amount differs from the guidelines-based award.

23. Modification of Support Awards. Before using these guidelines tomodify a child support award, the court must find that the circumstances of theparties have changed since the date that the order was entered (see Lepis v.Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) and Walton v. Visgil, 248 N.J. Super. 642 (App. Div.1991))). In applying the guidelines in modification actions, the court shallconsider the interrelationship of alimony or other financial factors that mayhave influenced the original child support amount as well as the principles setforth in existing case law. The adoption of revised child support guidelines isnot an automatic basis for the modification of a child support order. To qualifyfor a modification, a party must file a motion with the court and show a changein circumstances, other than the adoption of revised guidelines, as specified inLepis, supra, and other relevant case law.

24. Effect of Emancipation of a Child - If the guidelines were used tocalculate a child support award for two or more children, the emancipation ofa child shall not result in a proportionate reduction of the support order (i.e.,based on the economic evidence, it is not appropriate to reduce an order for twochildren by half if one child becomes emancipated). Instead, child supportaward should be recalculated based upon the current income of the parents andthe number of unemancipated children.

25. Support for a Child Who has Reached Majority - These schedules arebased on economic estimates of average intact-family expenditures on childrenfrom ages zero through 17. These guidelines shall not be used to determine asupport obligation for a child who has reached majority (18 years of age) andwho is no longer enrolled in high school or other secondary education. After achild reaches majority and completes secondary education, a supportobligation, if found by the court to be appropriate, shall be determined inaccordance with N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 and existing case law.

26. Health Insurance for Children. Unless the parents agree to analternative health care arrangement, all child support orders shall provide forthe coverage of the child's health care needs (i.e., medical and dental) andhealth insurance (when such insurance is available to either parent at areasonable cost). The parent's marginal cost of adding a child to a healthinsurance policy shall be added to the basic child support award and deductedfrom the paying parent's income share of the total child support award (seeAppendix IX-B). The following standards shall apply when determining if ahealth insurance provision is appropriate and which parent should providehealth insurance for the child.

a.The cost of health insurance is considered reasonable if it isemployment-related or available through a group plan, regardless ofthe service delivery mechanism, and does not reduce the net incomeof the obligor below 105% of the poverty guideline for one person

(after paying the child support award) or the custodial parent’s nethousehold income below 200% of the poverty guideline for thenumber of persons in the primary household. If sufficient income isnot available to pay child support and a health insurance premiumwithout eroding these income reserves, priority shall be given to childsupport.

b. Health insurance includes fees for service, health maintenanceorganizations (HMO), preferred provider organizations (PPO) andother types of coverage under which medical services could beprovided to the dependent child.

c. When reasonably priced health insurance is available to only oneparent, that parent shall be ordered to provide coverage for the child.

d. If health insurance is available to both parents, the parent who canobtain the most comprehensive coverage at the least cost shall beordered to provide health insurance for the child. Alternatively, bothparents may be ordered to provide health insurance if it is available tothem at a reasonable cost and the combination of plans provides themost comprehensive coverage.

e. When neither parent has access to health insurance, the parents shallbe ordered to share in health expenses in accordance with theirrelative incomes (see paragraph 9 for the treatment of predictable andrecurring unreimbursed health care expenses in excess of $250 perchild per year).

f. If the custodial parent and the child receive Medicaid, the non-custodial parent shall be ordered to enroll the child in a healthinsurance plan if it is available at a reasonable cost.

g. If health care insurance is not available to either parent at the time thesupport order is established, the court shall require that healthinsurance coverage be obtained for the child if it becomes available toeither parent in the future. The Probation Division shall monitor theavailability of health insurance for the child.

27. Unpredictable, Non-Recurring Unreimbursed Health-Care InExcess of $250 Per Child Per Year - As stated in paragraph 9, predictable andrecurring unreimbursed health care expenses in excess of $250 per child peryear should be added to the basic support obligation. However, because theunreimbursed cost, duration, or incidence of some illnesses or healthconditions are highly variable or unexpected, it may not be appropriate orpractical to add them to the basic support obligation when the support award isbeing established. To acknowledge the possibility of unpredictable or non-recurring unreimbursed health-care expenditures, the court should order thatsuch expenses, if incurred, be shared in proportion to each parent's relativeincome (income shares). Such payments should be made directly to the parentwho made or will make the health care expenditure or directly to the health careprovider (i.e., not through Probation).

28. Distribution of Worksheets and Financial Affidavits - Immediatelyfollowing the establishment or modification of a child support award, eachparty shall be provided with a copy of the support order and, if requested, acopy of the child support guidelines worksheet and any financial affidavitsused to determine the obligation. The original order, guidelines worksheet, andall financial affidavits shall be maintained in the Family Division case file.

29. Background Reports and Publications - The reports listed below wereeither used during the development of the New Jersey child support guidelinesor document the Supreme Court Family Practice Committee’s findings and

recommendations regarding the guidelines. Judiciary reports are available atthe New Jersey State library and select city, county, and county courthouselibraries. Reports prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices are available from the U.S. Office of Child Support EnforcementReference Center.

a. New Jersey Child Support Institute, Institute for Families, in cooperationwith the Office of Child Support Services, Division of Family Development,Department of Human Services, Child Support Guidelines QuadrennialReview: Final Report, 2013.

b. William M. Rodgers, III, New Jersey Economic Basis for Updated ChildSupport Schedule, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Fifth Update:January 16, 2013.

c. Margaret Campbell Haynes, Treatment of Social Security DisabilityDerivative Benefits, 2011.

d. New Jersey Child Support Institute, Institute for Families, in cooperationwith the Office of Child Support Services, Division of Family Development,Department of Human Services, Child Support Guidelines Working ForumCompendium, Fall 2009.

e. New Jersey Supreme Court Family Practice Committee, 2007 - 2009Final Report, January 20, 2009.

f. New Jersey Supreme Court Family Practice Committee, 2004 - 2007Final Report, January 12, 2007.

g. Policy Studies, Inc., New Jersey Economic Basis for Updated ChildSupport Schedule, Report prepared for the New Jersey Administrative Officeof the Courts, March 30, 2004.

h .New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, Supplemental Report ofthe Supreme Court Family Division Practice Committee on ProposedAmendments to Appendix IX (Child Support Guidelines) of the New JerseyCourt Rules, Report to the Supreme Court, October 1996.

i .New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, Final Report of theSupreme Court Family Division Practice Committee on Proposed Revisions tothe New Jersey Child Support Guidelines, Rule 5:6A and Appendix IX of theNew Jersey Court Rules, Report to the Supreme Court, March 1996.

j. Policy Studies, Inc., Economic Basis for Updated Child SupportSchedules, State of New Jersey, Report prepared for the New JerseyAdministrative Office of the Courts, April 1995.

k .Mark Lino, Expenditures on Children by Families, 1994 Annual Report,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion,Miscellaneous Publication 1528, April 1995.

l. David M. Betson, Alternative Estimates of the Cost of Children from the1980-86 Consumer Expenditure Survey, Report to the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services (Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning andEvaluation), University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty,September 1990.

m. Lewin/ICF, Estimates of Expenditures on Children and Child SupportGuidelines, Report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation), Lewin/ICF,October 1990.

n. Robert G. Williams, Development of Guidelines for Child SupportOrders, Final Report, Report to the U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement,Policy Studies Inc., September 1987.